PDA

View Full Version : How Much Vram is Really Needed to Play Unity.



JAC072
11-20-2014, 10:59 PM
I know that the recommended vram is 3GB or higher, but that is a bit vague since most vcards these days have 3 GB of vram or higher. The thing is that experience has taught me that sometimes such vague info is given on purpose to lure more people to buy these games, to then find that despite claims that their rigs could run those games people find that this is not true.

For example watchdogs. That was another game that was said to be able to run well on ultra with just 3 GB, which would be true if you planned on playing just on high settings. On ultra settings more than 3 GB of vram seems to clear the lag a lot of people were complaining about. Now, I know that bandwidth is also as important, because if you have for example a GTX 770 with 4 GB, it would not use all the 4 GB of Vram it has available because the max bandwidth of the card would not allow it.

Anyways, my question is this. How much vram is "really needed" to be able to play the game on ultra and without any lag?

I have a GTX 690 with 4GB of vram, and have to set the graphics almost at the lowest and still have some lag, which I have noticed other people also have the same lag as if the game was skipping a frame or 2 every few seconds as I have seen on youtube videos of other players playing AC unity.

amikhel
11-20-2014, 11:17 PM
I have 6 gb (2 GTX 780 SLI) and I can play on ultra but only with FXAA.

Nogeaux
11-20-2014, 11:22 PM
As a point of reference - I have an EVGA 780Ti Classified with 3 gb ram and run full out with no lag. Every 6 or 8 hours though I get a 10-15 second "mini-freeze" that clears up if I wait on it. Not sure what causes that.

nogeaux

JAC072
11-20-2014, 11:23 PM
I had 6 gb (2 GTX 780 SLI) and I can play on ultra but only with FXAA.

You can only play on FXAA because your system is still only using 3 GB of vram. You don't add the vram if you are running more than one graphics card. Also, not all games use SLI, only a few like battlefield, so you are stuck only using one vcard. Not entirely sure if Unity is well configured to run SLI.

JAC072
11-20-2014, 11:28 PM
Yeah, been thinking about getting a 780ti, because it seems Nvidia doesn't care much about optimizing well the drivers of old graphics cards such as the GTX 690 for newly released games. They concentrate on optimizing the newer cards they have released first. Even though to this day the price tag for a GTX 690 is $1,000 U.S.D. I bought mine 2 years ago, and it runs with no problems other games and all drivers are up to date. It took a long while for them to optimize graphic cards for the 600 series for games like Watchdogs.

The problem with the 780ti is that it only has 3gb of vram, and although it should be more or less fine with most of today games, it will change in 6 months or a year and you can count on that.

However, I have been debating whether to wait and see if Nvidia is going to release a 6GB version of the 780ti making it cheaper than the titan black. I am not spending $1,000+ U.S.D. for a graphics card anymore. Learned my lesson with the GTX 690.

Dudi485
11-20-2014, 11:52 PM
I know that the recommended vram is 3GB or higher, but that is a bit vague since most vcards these days have 3 GB of vram or higher. The thing is that experience has taught me that sometimes such vague info is given on purpose to lure more people to buy these games, to then find that despite claims that their rigs could run those games people find that this is not true.

For example watchdogs. That was another game that was said to be able to run well on ultra with just 3 GB, which would be true if you planned on playing just on high settings. On ultra settings more than 3 GB of vram seems to clear the lag a lot of people were complaining about. Now, I know that bandwidth is also as important, because if you have for example a GTX 770 with 4 GB, it would not use all the 4 GB of Vram it has available because the max bandwidth of the card would not allow it.

Anyways, my question is this. How much vram is "really needed" to be able to play the game on ultra and without any lag?

I have a GTX 690 with 4GB of vram, and have to set the graphics almost at the lowest and still have some lag, which I have noticed other people also have the same lag as if the game was skipping a frame or 2 every few seconds as I have seen on youtube videos of other players playing AC unity.


Hero you go:

"In testing Assassin's Creed Unity, we determined that the game uses substantially more video card memory than we've seen in most other current titles. When equipped with 4GB video cards, ACU demanded an impressive 3221MB (3.2GB) of static video RAM, with dynamic (reserve) usage tacking on an additional ~250MB consumed. Our total max consumption of GDDR5 memory rested at around 3.5GB.

It looks like higher capacity video cards are finally getting saturated. In fact, in the benchmark graphs below, it becomes clear that capacity impacts performance more than we've seen in past titles.

As for system memory, consumption hovers at around 2.1-2.3GB at any given time. We'd like to see games use more if they've got the need for RAM, but it's a start."


And for @heredarkness

In Multi Gpu setup (same for bigpu carts like GTX 690, Titan Z or AMD R9 295X2) the amount of VRAM DON'T add up with each other this mean that your 690 has only 2GB of VRAM. So actually @heredarkness's 2x 780 has only 3GB which is not enough to run Unity on Ultra settings. And if you want to push it further like 2K or 4K display you will need for that 4GB of VRAM.... Also you need to know that MSAA and TXAA significantly increase VRAM consumption.

I almost forgot: you can only get 780 in 3 of 6 GB versions but the 6GB cost much more than we expected, it's about 530+:
http://www.fnac.com/mp22794379/ASUS-STRIX-GTX780-OC-6GD5-carte-graphique-GF-GTX-780-6-Go/w-4

In this case is better to wait for 8GB version of 980's.

See you in Paris, Assassin :)

Dicehunter
11-21-2014, 12:18 AM
Ubisoft need to educate themselves on the meaning of the word "Optimisation", Konami's Metal Gear Solid Ground Zero and Phantom Pain which are both coming to PC have recommended specs of a 760, A 760 !!

And that game looks graphically the same as Unity maybe more polished in certain areas, This is what optimization gets you.

A polished product than can be enjoyed from day 1 but not with Ubisoft, They release beta versions of their games, P*** off their PAYING customers and then eventually patch the game to look somewhat like a finished product but seeing as it's Ubisoft it will never be a finished product as their games are permanently in a beta state.


Hero you go:

"In testing Assassin's Creed Unity, we determined that the game uses substantially more video card memory than we've seen in most other current titles. When equipped with 4GB video cards, ACU demanded an impressive 3221MB (3.2GB) of static video RAM, with dynamic (reserve) usage tacking on an additional ~250MB consumed. Our total max consumption of GDDR5 memory rested at around 3.5GB.

It looks like higher capacity video cards are finally getting saturated. In fact, in the benchmark graphs below, it becomes clear that capacity impacts performance more than we've seen in past titles.

As for system memory, consumption hovers at around 2.1-2.3GB at any given time. We'd like to see games use more if they've got the need for RAM, but it's a start."


And for @heredarkness

In Multi Gpu setup (same for bigpu carts like GTX 690, Titan Z or AMD R9 295X2) the amount of VRAM DON'T add up with each other this mean that your 690 has only 2GB of VRAM. So actually @heredarkness's 2x 780 has only 3GB which is not enough to run Unity on Ultra settings. And if you want to push it further like 2K or 4K display you will need for that 4GB of VRAM.... Also you need to know that MSAA and TXAA significantly increase VRAM consumption.

I almost forgot: you can only get 780 in 3 of 6 GB versions but the 6GB cost much more than we expected, it's about 530+€:
http://www.fnac.com/mp22794379/ASUS-STRIX-GTX780-OC-6GD5-carte-graphique-GF-GTX-780-6-Go/w-4

In this case is better to wait for 8GB version of 980's.

See you in Paris, Assassin :)

Nvidia let out a statement recently saying the 8GB versions of the 980's were actually completely fabricated by news sites to get site clicks, They have no plans to release 8GB versions as for every 1 x 8GB version they sell they could sell 2 x 4GB 980's and this was directly from the mouth of Nvidia via overclockers.co.uk who are directly in contact with them and 1 of Europes biggest etailers for PC enthusiasts.

amikhel
11-21-2014, 12:19 AM
Hero you go:

"In testing Assassin's Creed Unity, we determined that the game uses substantially more video card memory than we've seen in most other current titles. When equipped with 4GB video cards, ACU demanded an impressive 3221MB (3.2GB) of static video RAM, with dynamic (reserve) usage tacking on an additional ~250MB consumed. Our total max consumption of GDDR5 memory rested at around 3.5GB.

It looks like higher capacity video cards are finally getting saturated. In fact, in the benchmark graphs below, it becomes clear that capacity impacts performance more than we've seen in past titles.

As for system memory, consumption hovers at around 2.1-2.3GB at any given time. We'd like to see games use more if they've got the need for RAM, but it's a start."


And for @heredarkness

In Multi Gpu setup (same for bigpu carts like GTX 690, Titan Z or AMD R9 295X2) the amount of VRAM DON'T add up with each other this mean that your 690 has only 2GB of VRAM. So actually @heredarkness's 2x 780 has only 3GB which is not enough to run Unity on Ultra settings. And if you want to push it further like 2K or 4K display you will need for that 4GB of VRAM.... Also you need to know that MSAA and TXAA significantly increase VRAM consumption.

I almost forgot: you can only get 780 in 3 of 6 GB versions but the 6GB cost much more than we expected, it's about 530+:
http://www.fnac.com/mp22794379/ASUS-STRIX-GTX780-OC-6GD5-carte-graphique-GF-GTX-780-6-Go/w-4

In this case is better to wait for 8GB version of 980's.

See you in Paris, Assassin :)

Yeah, thanks mate :)

JAC072
11-21-2014, 12:28 AM
Thanks for the info. I actually thought that the GTX 690 had 4 gb of vram for each gpu. I was obviously wrong.

JAC072
11-21-2014, 12:34 AM
So, even the GTX 780 ti is going to have some performance problems with Unity. So either we buy a titan black, or we buy the 6gb vram GTX 780 which will perform worse than the 780ti, except that you won't have lag. Or, we wait a couple months and see if Nvidia is going to release a cheaper version of the titan black as the 6gb GTX 780 ti that has been rumored will be released to compete with AMD newest video cards.

amikhel
11-21-2014, 12:42 AM
or maybe a new generation of videocards in the next year... gtx 1080?

Dicehunter
11-21-2014, 12:43 AM
So, even the GTX 780 ti is going to have some performance problems with Unity. So either we buy a titan black, or we buy the 6gb vram GTX 780 which will perform worse than the 780ti, except that you won't have lag. Or, we wait a couple months and see if Nvidia is going to release a cheaper version of the titan black as the 6gb GTX 780 ti that has been rumored will be release to compete with AMD newest video cards.

The 6GB version of the 780 Ti rumor was already debunked, The 700 series of cards are no longer in production.


or maybe a new generation of videocards in the next year... gtx 1080?

The 900 series only launched literally 3 weeks ago, We won't be seeing the 1000 series for at least 10 months.

dangel666
11-21-2014, 12:46 AM
I see 90-95% VRAM use on SLI'd 980GTX's with everything on Ultra (or max) with FXAA set at 2560x1440. I've not really played the game though but it feels smooth enough (but then I'm using G sync so it skews things somewhat..).

amikhel
11-21-2014, 12:49 AM
The 6GB version of the 780 Ti rumor was already debunked, The 700 series of cards are no longer in production.



The 900 series only launched literally 3 weeks ago, We won't be seeing the 1000 series for at least 10 months.

Yeah, with the release of another Assassin's Creed :( .

JAC072
11-21-2014, 04:56 AM
The 6GB version of the 780 Ti rumor was already debunked, The 700 series of cards are no longer in production.



The 900 series only launched literally 3 weeks ago, We won't be seeing the 1000 series for at least 10 months.

There is a lot of back and forth rumors of whether a 6 GB vram 780 ti will be released or not. But take in perspective that even thou the GTX 980 was released recently, there is another rumor that due to a leak it seems NVidia will be releasing either in December (next month), or possibly in January a GTX 980 ti with NVIDIA's new GM200 gpu.

http://www.eteknix.com/next-generation-nvidia-gpu-leaked/

Dicehunter
11-21-2014, 10:27 AM
There is a lot of back and forth rumors of whether a 6 GB vram 780 ti will be released or not. But take in perspective that even thou the GTX 980 was released recently, there is another rumor that due to a leak it seems NVidia will be releasing either in December (next month), or possibly in January a GTX 980 ti with NVIDIA's new GM200 gpu.

http://www.eteknix.com/next-generation-nvidia-gpu-leaked/

That rumor is actually old it's just news sites like to post it lots to get clicks on their sites, If there is a 980 Ti, Well for starters they won't be able to call it a 980 Ti as it will be using a completely different core to the 980.

The 980 is a fully enabled chip, It has no more SMX units to switch on ergo their next card will have to be called a 1080 or something along those lines and probably their next card will be the Titan II which isn't really in the realms of standard gamers.

JAC072
11-21-2014, 12:33 PM
Anyway, I ran Heaven Benchmark 4.0 to see how much Vram the gpus of my GTX 690 were using in a stress test. They both were running with the same vram at 3 GB in the stress test. So the GTX 690 seems to run at max 3 gb of vram.

What I find strange is that sometimes playing the game I get 50-60 fps while other times I get 20-30 fps which makes it lag a lot more. I have been trying to play around with different configurations, including some of which have been advised by other players, and I am not having a lot of luck. However the Nvidia drivers 144.48, an older driver, makes the game run smoother than with the newer drivers.

Dicehunter
11-21-2014, 12:44 PM
Anyway, I ran Heaven Benchmark 4.0 to see how much Vram the gpus of my GTX 690 were using in a stress test. They both were running with the same vram at 3 GB in the stress test. So the GTX 690 seems to run at max 3 gb of vram.

What I find strange is that sometimes playing the game I get 50-60 fps while other times I get 20-30 fps which makes it lag a lot more. I have been trying to play around with different configurations, including some of which have been advised by other players, and I am not having a lot of luck. However the Nvidia drivers 144.48, an older driver, makes the game run smoother than with the newer drivers.

So in reality Heaven was using 1.5GB per GPU, VRAM doesn't stack FYI, Seems about right to be honest but it's very weird with the older drivers running the game smoothly, Yay for non existent optimization.

YazX_
11-21-2014, 12:52 PM
Max i've seen is 3.88 GB with 2xMSAA and MFAA enabled, avg is 3.5 GB and min 3 GB with FXAA, this is without PCSS and everything else maxed out.

Dicehunter
11-21-2014, 12:59 PM
The game actually runs pretty smooth for me with everything minus AA at max 1440P, Which considering this is an Ubisoft title I was amazed and shocked.

Eymerich
11-21-2014, 02:39 PM
I have 6 gb (2 GTX 780 SLI) and I can play on ultra but only with FXAA.

RAM doesn't add in SLI configurations. You still have just 3GBs.

Eymerich
11-21-2014, 02:42 PM
As a point of reference - I have an EVGA 780Ti Classified with 3 gb ram and run full out with no lag. Every 6 or 8 hours though I get a 10-15 second "mini-freeze" that clears up if I wait on it. Not sure what causes that.

nogeaux

Can you post the graphical settings you are using? I have the very same card and get stuttering non the less. What's your CPU? Are you using V-Sync?

Eymerich
11-21-2014, 02:45 PM
The game actually runs pretty smooth for me with everything minus AA at max 1440P, Which considering this is an Ubisoft title I was amazed and shocked.

Not being able to use AA is not a small thing.

YazX_
11-21-2014, 02:54 PM
Not being able to use AA is not a small thing.

at higher resolutions like 1440p and above, you dont need high AA , the more you go up the less AA you need, however, you can still apply FXAA or inject SMAA via RadeonPro and performance hit is very minimal.

JAC072
11-21-2014, 11:22 PM
So in reality Heaven was using 1.5GB per GPU, VRAM doesn't stack FYI, Seems about right to be honest but it's very weird with the older drivers running the game smoothly, Yay for non existent optimization.

Benchmark was showing each gpu running at 3004 MB vram. it's the way that benchmark shows it it doesn't mean each gpu is running exactly at 3004, but the combination of both are. If each was running 1.5gb then it would have shown 1.5gb right?

Remember that this is not SLI configuration, both gpus are in one graphics card. Nvidia claims it is a 4GB graphics card, but in reality it's only 3gb vram.

If this card was only running at 1.5GB vram I wouldn't have been able to play watchdogs at all. in Watchdogs I get no lag at all. Same for Black Flag and I play those games in ultra with all graphics set to max.

strigoi1958
11-22-2014, 12:39 AM
Not being able to use AA is not a small thing.

Well that depends on whether AA is important to you or not. If you told people below minimum specification you cannot play this game at all.... but if you turn off AA you will definitely be able to play it... there would be thousands of happy gamers playing but anyone who thinks a setting or option is more important than the game would either not play or upgrade...

For some people getting 1,000 FPS is their goal in life, for others everything has to be maxed whether it looks better or worse it doesn't matter as long as it is maxed.
But for me... I'm just a gamer, I just want to play games... and gameplay is far far far (yes that really did need 3 ;) ) more important than how a game looks or how many hundreds of FPS it has. No matter how beautiful a bad game looks... it's still a bad game:D

JAC072
11-22-2014, 01:20 AM
Well that depends on whether AA is important to you or not. If you told people below minimum specification you cannot play this game at all.... but if you turn off AA you will definitely be able to play it... there would be thousands of happy gamers playing but anyone who thinks a setting or option is more important than the game would either not play or upgrade...

For some people getting 1,000 FPS is their goal in life, for others everything has to be maxed whether it looks better or worse it doesn't matter as long as it is maxed.
But for me... I'm just a gamer, I just want to play games... and gameplay is far far far (yes that really did need 3 ;) ) more important than how a game looks or how many hundreds of FPS it has. No matter how beautiful a bad game looks... it's still a bad game:D

Turning AA off helps a bit with fps, but there is still lag even with a rig like mine which should be able to play the game well on medium settings if not on high. I know I would never be able to play unity with max settings with a GTX 690, but still this game was set up mainly for high end gaming rigs.

Dicehunter
11-22-2014, 01:22 AM
Benchmark was showing each gpu running at 3004 MB vram. it's the way that benchmark shows it it doesn't mean each gpu is running exactly at 3004, but the combination of both are. If each was running 1.5gb then it would have shown 1.5gb right?

Remember that this is not SLI configuration, both gpus are in one graphics card. Nvidia claims it is a 4GB graphics card, but in reality it's only 3gb vram.

If this card was only running at 1.5GB vram I wouldn't have been able to play watchdogs at all. in Watchdogs I get no lag at all. Same for Black Flag.


Well the GTX 690 has 4GB TOTAL split into to 2GB per GPU core making it a 2GB card as VRAM doesn't stack, It uses internal SLI to bridge both GPU's on the PCB, Nvidia call it a 4GB card as it's good marketing but in actual fact 2GB is all that's available.

Programs read this as 4GB because the way it is designed it would be the same with any other multi GPU setup wether it was a duel GPU card like the 690, 295X2 etc....If you don't believe me ask any one who knows their tech, Heck even ask Nvidia themselves and they will give you the same answer, I also use to own this card so I'm not just reading off of websites.

And to prove it further here's a few reviews if you still don't believe me -


http://www.anandtech.com/show/5805/nvidia-geforce-gtx-690-review-ultra-expensive-ultra-rare-ultra-fast

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-690-benchmark,3193.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/evga-geforce-gtx-690-review,1.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_690/



http://i.imgur.com/FwZGj9X.jpg?1


And another shot of GPU-Z which is used to collect GPU information, Look at the memory size near the center -


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jGpGL8_HzaY/T-ceu8z68BI/AAAAAAAAISk/ggIiVHXtBNM/s1600/Geforce+GTX+690.png

Blackred689
11-22-2014, 02:41 AM
Just to confirm VRAM does not double up. GTX 690 is only 2GB. 780ti SLI is only 3GB and 780ti 6GB is old news that will never happen.

Assassins Unity in my own testing on a 970 uses 3.5GB like the linked article says

We might see 8gb 980s, maybe from vendors only. I think though we'll see a Titan II and maybe a 980ti with larger VRAM and larger bus. Depends what AMD do as well, it seems their next card will be 8gb and could push NVidia

JAC072
11-22-2014, 02:54 AM
Well the GTX 690 has 4GB TOTAL split into to 2GB per GPU core making it a 2GB card as VRAM doesn't stack, It uses internal SLI to bridge both GPU's on the PCB, Nvidia call it a 4GB card as it's good marketing but in actual fact 2GB is all that's available.
...

I believe you. Just been trying to figure it out since Nvidia pretty much lied about this graphics card. Thanks for the info.

JAC072
11-22-2014, 04:35 AM
So quick question. Been thinking about upgrading to maybe a GTX 980.

Which do you think is better.

The Zotac? http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=9512109&CatId=7387

The PNY GeForce? http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=9191507&CatId=7387

The Gygabyte? http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=9188865&CatId=7387

The MSI? http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=9193563&CatId=7387

Or the ASUS? http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=9515557&CatId=7387

To me the price difference doesn't matter. Just want to try to get the best one I can get now. More so since they have an offer of getting a free game I can choose.

I am guessing the Zotac?

rubenetfoios
11-22-2014, 07:29 AM
Unity us all VRAM of GTX980 G1 Gaming 3900Mb constantly
gtx980 is not so goo to I expect.. low Bus interface and 4Gb I think could have 6Gb for 600
if you have 780Ti still with this and wait the new GTX980 Ti specifications.

JAC072
11-24-2014, 10:35 PM
The 780ti has only 3 GB of vram, which is less than what the GTX980 has which is 4. The GTX 980 is a much better graphics card than the GTX780ti.

DanonMight
11-24-2014, 10:48 PM
SHADOW OF MORDOR USED 4GB OF VRAM ON ULTRA BUT STILL I WAS ABLE TO PLAY ON ULTRA WITH 50 fps. in unity i have 60 fps 1080p on max. it really depends on generall pc build. my gtx 780 HAVE 3GB VRAM and so far every game i run on max details with comfortable gameplay. Planning to get gtx980 but probably not before official witcher 3 sys requirements :)

Dicehunter
11-25-2014, 04:56 PM
Unity us all VRAM of GTX980 G1 Gaming 3900Mb constantly
gtx980 is not so goo to I expect.. low Bus interface and 4Gb I think could have 6Gb for 600€
if you have 780Ti still with this and wait the new GTX980 Ti specifications.

The 256Bit bus is actually there for reason as they have new compression methods which enable real bandwidth in excess of the 780 Ti.